Cogito, ergo spam

Eventually, the problem of spam arises on all message boards, and I've seen all sorts of approaches to deal with it, but no one method which outshines them all: there are advantages and disadvantages to every plan, and you have to tailor your solution to the sort of board that you have, and the sort of board that you want.

On fanhost.com, for instance, the admins noticed that posters were posting spam just to bump up their post count. Assuming that posters were rational agents, they reset everyone's post count. However, this had absolutely no effect on the spam, and three of the site's top posters left in dudgeon of debatable altitude. The spam continues. Perhaps eliminating the post count altogether would have been better, but that's just my conjecture.

On thescifi.com, they had a special forum for spam, and this seemed to work at keeping the other forums on-topic. If any thread on any other forum became over-run with spam, it got moved to the spam forum. However, it had the unpredictable consequence of killing the other "themed" forums, as all the "cool" regular posters gathered in the spam forum, and all the other posters (even, ironically, the ones complaining loudest about said spam) want to read what the "cool" posters are talking about.

On theotherzone.com, the admins rather cleverly just removed the post counts from the view of the posters, without deleting them altogether. This meant that posters could retain their rankings without getting panicked about their precise position in the order.

Sometimes the answer is hidden in the question. On djtaz.com, the General forum started getting gummed up with spam. However, there were still twenty other perfectly serviceable forums that people could post on, and pretty much all the posts made in Religion, Politics and Debates (I'm using these as examples because I was familiar with them) were on-topic even in the middle of the maelstrom. Posters who found the spam disagreeable could have got involved in any of those wonderful threads and forums at any time, but chose not to, for reasons not entirely clear to me even now. They preferred to monitor the inane babblings conducted in part by myself in the General forum. There was even a curious case of a poster whose only contributions seemed to be complaining about spam. This qualifies as a rare sighting of irony in the wild.

In fact, there is only one proven way to kick spam up the arse, and that is for the posters complaining about that spam to make some quality posts. For the record, complaining about other posters being more prolific than you does not count as "quality posts".


Solo1's Definition Circus

A spam post is one that is irrelevant, witless and which adds nothing to the thread. A quality post is a post that is relevant, witty and which adds something to the thread. We can play around with these definitions all day, but that's basically it.

For instance, "I agree with solo1" is relevant, but witless and it really adds nothing to the thread, so it's two-thirds spam. If you want to see some examples of relevant, witty posts which add something, go to theotherzone.com and see any of my posts in the Religion or Politics forums. If you want to see some good examples of spam posts, go to theotherzone.com and check out any of my posts in the General forum.


Email Spam

Email spam is a different horse altogether - this is when people you don't know keep sending you offers for things you don't want. It's the online equivalent of junk mail, and because of the sheer volume, it's even more annoying. There are, again, many ways to combat this email spam, but the best way is still setting up email filters with known addresses and codewords (my advice is to start with "Viagra") to be automatically deleted from the server. Update October 2007: I have Vista installed on my new laptop and its pre-programmed junk e-mail filter really works. It's letting through about one spam message in every fifty, which is a very good hit rate for any programme. I'm impressed.

Every so often some bright spark will think of a sure-fire way to stop spam dead in its tracks. What that spark fails to appreciate is that his idea is not new. Lots of people have tried all sorts of things to stop spam, and nothing is waterproof. For instance, setting a filter on the word "Viagra", as I recommended above, will also stop legitimate emails from friends which just happen to mention Viagra. Are you one of these bright sparks? Do you have an idea that will definitely stop the spam problem? If so, read on, and tick the boxes accordingly. If not, you have reached the bottom of the page. Thank you.

Your idea advocates a (technical / legislative / market-based) approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it will not work:

Spammers can use it to harvest email addresses
Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
It is defenseless against brute force attacks
It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
Users of email will not put up with it
Microsoft will not put up with it
The police will not put up with it
Requires too much cooperation from spammers
Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for:

Laws expressly prohibiting it
Lack of central controlling authority for email
Jurisdiction
Public reluctance to accept weird new taxes
Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
Huge existing software investment in SMTP
Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
Armies of worm-riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Extreme profitability of spam
Identity theft
Technically illiterate politicians
Stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

Ideas are easy to come up with, yet none has ever been practical
Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
Blacklists suck
Whitelists suck
We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
Sending email should be free
Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
Incompatiblity with open source licenses
Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
I don't want the government reading my email

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

Sorry, but I don't think it would work
This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it
I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!


HOME LINKS INTERESTS FRIENDS DIARY SITE INDEX